Amy Newmann (the plaintiff) purchased eight containers of paint from David Smith (the seller), who then contracted with MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (the defendant, who was erroneously described as 'Mediterranean Shipping Co' in the plaintiff's claim) to ship the containers from the United States to Ghana. The containers arrived in Ghana in October 2015. The plaintiff tried to collect them, but was told by the defendant that she could not, because the seller had not paid the freight. The plaintiff offered to pay the freight herself but her request was denied by the defendant. The containers were subject to significant demurrage charges and were eventually sold at auction. In October 2018, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant, seeking compensatory damages arising from her alleged inability to collect containers. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the one-year statute of limitations in COGSA/the Hague Rules barred the plaintiff’s claim.

Held: Motion granted.

COGSA/the Hague Rules govern all contracts for the carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United States in foreign trade. Under COGSA/the Hague Rules, the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless 'suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered'. The statute of limitations began to run in October 2015 when the goods were discharged from the vessel and 'notice of the discharge and a reasonable opportunity for the inspection or removal of the goods' was provided. Although the containers were ultimately not delivered to the plaintiff because the defendant refused to deliver the goods without being paid, notice of the discharge constituted 'constructive delivery' as this was when the containers were ready for delivery. The plaintiff did not file this suit until October 2018.

The plaintiff argued that she did not file the claim within the period of the statute of limitations because she was misled by the defendant, who told her that she could not file a suit while the defendant was investigating her claim and that the statute of limitations would be extended pending the investigation. However, the plaintiff conceded that the investigation was completed around October 2016. Therefore, even if the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defence for the additional year that the investigation took, the plaintiff did not file the suit until two years after the investigation concluded. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.